Getting a handle on the Islamic State: To Know Your Enemy, You Must First Accurately Name Him

MAJ Charles Ray — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 16:40:12 -0500

The U.S. Government was concerned about al-Qaeda before September 11, 2001. However, following that horrific event, that organization and its enigmatic leader was the focus of most of our efforts. We sent troops first into Afghanistan and subsequently the ill-fated foray into Iraq, and the main objective was to eliminate al-Qaeda.

Despite the killing of Osama bin Laden; al-Qaeda and its worldwide affiliates continue to be a security threat. However, in the past two years, they have been eclipsed by a force that unfortunately grew out of our operations in Iraq; the Islamic State. As it grew out of al-Qaeda’s franchise, the Islamic State originally was known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). Meanwhile, Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi aligned his Jama-at al-Tawhidw’al-Jihad with al-Qaeda in response to the U.S. invasion in 2003. When Zarqawi was killed in a U.S. airstrike that same year, AQI was weakened and his successors rebranded the organization as al-Dawa al-Islamiya al-Iraq al-Sham, or ISIS. The al-Sham in the title roughly corresponds to the Levant, which led some to call the organization the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL. This rebranding reflected the broadening aims of the organization to create a new caliphate in the region, taking advantage of popular uprisings in Syria.

To its followers, the group is known as il-Dawla, or the State. To its Arab detractors, it is called Daesh, which is an acronym for ISIL, but when pronounced with a single syllable in Arabic, it roughly means to crush or to tread on. In June 2014, the self-proclaimed caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the organization’s leader, renamed it al-Dawa al-Islamiya, the Islamic State (IS), which seems to portend wider ambitions than the Levant.

Unlike prior militant groups, IS includes military operations aimed at conquering and controlling territory as well as traditional terrorist attacks. By September 2014, IS effectively controlled nearly 81,000 square miles of territory in the region, including several key cities and towns. They have been aided in their military operations by the remnants of Saddam Hussein’s Ba’athist military officers who were summarily dismissed by Coalition Provisional Authority chief, L. Paul Bremmer. Allied force operations and air strikes have managed to retake nearly 9,000 square miles of the territory conquered by IS, but this leaves a substantial part of the region under IS control. In addition, IS has taken credit for, or lauded, terrorist strikes outside the Middle East, including the November 2015 attack in Paris which killed 130 people and wounded nearly 400.

It is clear that the Islamic State is a substantial threat to the security of the West, and to those in the Muslim world who refuse to join its ranks. However, following media reports on its activities can be a confusing undertaking.

The reason for the confusion, in my view, is the fact that no one can seem to agree on a name for the enemy. It calls itself the Islamic State, IS. The U.S. Government uses the term ISIL, while the UN uses ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria). The French used the term Daesh, which infuriates the IS leadership because of the pejorative connotations, and Western media swings back and forth on terminology, using IS, ISIS, and ISIL interchangeably.

Words have meaning, often far beyond the intent of the persons using them. I recall lectures during my days in the military where the slogan ‘Know Your Enemy’ was often used – a perfectly logical thought process. In order to effectively fight an enemy, you must have a clear idea of who and what that enemy is. This confusion in terminology, I fear, can’t help but seep into strategic planning to confront this most determined enemy. I can’t help but believe that clarity in naming our enemy would help in that planning.

So, what should we call this enemy? I don’t often find myself agreeing with the French government (a legacy of the role France played in getting us involved in Vietnam, perhaps), but I believe they might be onto something. Daesh has the advantage of being a term that is descriptive, is understood by the population of the region, and aggravates the enemy. Whether everyone can ever agree to use it is another matter. However, it’s clear to me that we all need to agree on a single name for an enemy that is not going away any time soon if we have any hope of defeating it.

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Feb 10 at 2016 5:44 PM

Capt Tom Brown — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 17:44:00 -0500

Thanks for the back story on how these various acronyms developed. It is very hard to follow the various names applied to these terrorist organizations as they all are so intertwined and confusing to US. I like the term Daesh because it is one which the terrorists do not like and that is enough for many people. The press and even our own gvt (POTUS included) seem to make every effort to be PC and not say anything which might upset the terrorists, calling them by a name or reference which the terrorists want and like to be called, thus giving them credibility in their own eyes. Anyone who calls the Daesh what they want to be called is helping them in doing so.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2016 6:20 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 18:20:20 -0500

It is important that we don't neglect the significance of Al-Sham or the Levant in the name because it directly correlates to the groups goals, which Daesh appropriately does. We gloss over so many things when dealing with the Arabic culture and the fight against Islamic extremism. Al-Qaeda and Daesh talk openly about their goals and how they are supported by the Quran. Al-Qeada wanted to draw the US into a protracted global war that drains resources and erodes support at home...its in all of Osama's speeches. Daesh openly talks about pulling us into a conflict in Dabiq, Syria and they'll use brutality to shock the world and their enemies. Both groups, to a certain extent, are achieving their goals. Ensuring we pay attention to details like whats in a name, slogan, or message is important.

I do disagree with your assessment that prior militant groups did not have territorial aspirations. Al-Qaeda had territorial goals, all the native Afghan groups want land, the groups in Africa do control land and want more land. Land equals a base, taxes, resources and provides a level of legitimacy. The scary thing about Daesh is they were more successful than any of their predecessors in a very short period of time. Also, Zarqawi was killed in 2006. It is also important to note that, in my humble opinion, his successors did not successfully rebrand the organization and separate from core Al-Qaeda until after the US withdrawal, because they were busy hiding...no time for marketing meetings when you can't sleep in the same house for two nights in a row.

Good piece, and I think you bring up a really important point about paying attention to the words that our enemies use. Additionally, thanks for bringing up the topic. I went back and researched some of the history because I couldn't recall the details. I forgot how splintered all the groups were in Iraq around the time of the surge; it was so chaotic, everyone was attacking us, they were attacking each other across sects, and they were fighting within sects for supremacy. Daesh was formed, as you pointed out, during this very violent and hectic time, which most likely contributes to their barbaric tactics.

Response by MAJ Matthew Arnold made Feb 10 at 2016 7:11 PM

MAJ Matthew Arnold — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 19:11:46 -0500

I agree with the French and the anti-Daesh governments in the Mid-East. Daesh is the right name. (However, my computer keeps trying to change it back to dash.)

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2016 8:47 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:47:16 -0500

MAJ Charles Ray I don't agree with your statement that the different names being applied to a single organization is confusing. I think it's commonly known that IS, ISIL, ISIS, Da'esh, is the same political organization. Can you please let me know your information source for "As it grew out of al-Qaeda’s franchise, the Islamic State originally was known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI)"?
ISIS and Al Qaeda are different from one another. Here's how.
ISIS has a conventional army, Al Qaeda never did.
ISIS seeks to hold territory, Al Qaeda never did
ISIS is more brutal than Al Qaeda.
ISIS is more popular with the younger generation.
ISIS gained popularity with the young by embracing social media, while al Qaeda stuck to more traditional recruiting methods.
al Qaeda has attacked the United States
ISIS uses criminal activities to fund itself before it began to receive donations.
Al Qaeda has always been reliant on donations.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Feb 11 at 2016 3:29 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 03:29:26 -0500

MAJ Charles Ray, you glossed over the fact that AQI was all but destroyed until the current administration pulled our forces out of Iraq prematurely, allowing them to reconstitute into ISIS and to grow and expand unmolested while dismissing them as the JV.

Also, quibbling over terms is not the same as recognizing them as a force to be destroyed wherever they are found by any name they may be called.

If "Daesh" works and irritates them it would appear to be a good name for an implacable enemy, but wordplay will be of scant use against such brutal people. What is needed is hot blood, cold steel, and an unwavering resolve.

Response by SGT William Howell made Feb 11 at 2016 9:38 AM

SGT William Howell — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 09:38:50 -0500

Are you kidding me? The media creates the names for the most part and when they don't, some general does. Then somebody else comes in and puts their spin on it and ISIS becomes ISIL. Same people, same organization, different politician.

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Feb 11 at 2016 2:24 PM

CPT Pedro Meza — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:24:50 -0500

Daesh, or Infidels for failing to follow the Pillars of Islam is appropriate because any name that takes away their romantic influence is a worthy weapon. The worse thing that we do is calling them Muslims because that romanticize them and gives them more followers.